How Did 15-18 Year Old Kids Organize A Nationwide Movement In Less Than A Week?

[rightwinger]

Yeah! More gun control measures! That ought to work out well, just like it has for the past 50 or so years! Things have gotten MUCH better.

Countries in the industrialized world who control access to guns have a murder rate one fifth of ours

But I guess we know better

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Expand and improve the background check system. Prevent the mentally disturbed from owning guns. Reinsitiute and perfect the assault weapons ban. Stop concealed carry reciprocity.

Reasonable demands that do not infringe on anyone or anything.

I didn't argue whether or not your ideas were reasonable ...
I simply indicated that your demands do not require a serious response when you have nothing to offer in return for a compromise.

You can have a list of demands ... That does not equal the necessity for anyone to attempt to meet them ...

.

How about stemming the tide of mass shootings? Or,are you not willing to concede that is a problem?

Stemming the tide? All two of them?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. It's because you're unnecessarily lethal.

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Your definition is wrong. Suck it buttercup! Someone lied to you!

My handgun would then be classified as an assault weapon.

Dumb ass!

 

[Nosmo King]

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

A magazine limit is stupid.....really ,really stupid. It is a back door ban on semi auto pistols, since many of them are manufactured for 15-19 round magazines.....ban those, and the pistols are useless....since gun makers won't reconfigure their process for guns that hold those magazines.....that is the only reason for the magazine ban.....

Here...try some actual research into magazines....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

What is the virtue of LCMs? Why are they good? Why should they be protected?

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

 

[2aguy]

A magazine limit is stupid.....really ,really stupid. It is a back door ban on semi auto pistols, since many of them are manufactured for 15-19 round magazines.....ban those, and the pistols are useless....since gun makers won't reconfigure their process for guns that hold those magazines.....that is the only reason for the magazine ban.....

Here...try some actual research into magazines....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

What is the virtue of LCMs? Why are they good? Why should they be protected?

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

 

[2aguy]

No. It's because you're unnecessarily lethal.

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Your definition is wrong. Suck it buttercup! Someone lied to you!

My handgun would then be classified as an assault weapon.

Dumb ass!

My handgun would then be classified as an assault weapon.


They know this.....that is what I call the Anti-gun Bait and Switch. They screech "Assault Weapon, Assault Weapon." The uninformed voters...because they don't understand the issue, believe the anti gunners want to ban AR-15s the "Assault Weapon"...so the uniformed go along with the "Assault Weapon" ban. Then, that anti gunners switch it up.......and now your pistol is banned because it is a "Semi auto gun that uses a magazine." Something the uninformed didn't understand or realize.......

The anti gunners know what they are doing.....they know exactly what that definition will give them the power to ban.....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, That does not describe an AR. An AR is just a sporting rifle for varmints and such it was not designed for anything else... period

You either have hordes of 'varmits' or you cannot recognize facts when you see them.

An "assault rifle" is a rapid firing, magazine fed automatic rifle designed for military use. An AR-15 is a semi automatic which is really good for target practice and plinking cans.

You forgot to add among its many uses it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Due to its rapid rate of fire and high capacity magazine, it can kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Andy Griffith isn't shooting it with Opie. Maniacs are shooting it into crowds of innocents.

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they were pro NRA you would be in full support. I am a hunter...used to be an NRA member but since they wouldn't explain to me where one cent of my money was going I was forced to quit. No loss. My gun rights are fully protected by the second amendment. I don't need any more than that.

Managed to get to adulthood without the ability to read, huh? Pity!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Expand and improve the background check system. Prevent the mentally disturbed from owning guns. Reinsitiute and perfect the assault weapons ban. Stop concealed carry reciprocity.

Reasonable demands that do not infringe on anyone or anything.

I didn't argue whether or not your ideas were reasonable ...
I simply indicated that your demands do not require a serious response when you have nothing to offer in return for a compromise.

You can have a list of demands ... That does not equal the necessity for anyone to attempt to meet them ...

.

How about stemming the tide of mass shootings? Or,are you not willing to concede that is a problem?

Stemming the tide? All two of them?

There have been mass shootings (4 or more dead) average one every five days for many years.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is the virtue of LCMs? Why are they good? Why should they be protected?

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

Concealed carry reciprocity makes the most lax laws the law of the land. People in California or New York don't dictate to Mississippi how to run their gun laws, what laws there are. Why should Mississippi then call the shots (no pun intended) for California and New York?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. It's because you're unnecessarily lethal.

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Your definition is wrong. Suck it buttercup! Someone lied to you!

My handgun would then be classified as an assault weapon.

Dumb ass!

Take it up with the courts, sour breath.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If they were pro NRA you would be in full support. I am a hunter...used to be an NRA member but since they wouldn't explain to me where one cent of my money was going I was forced to quit. No loss. My gun rights are fully protected by the second amendment. I don't need any more than that.

Managed to get to adulthood without the ability to read, huh? Pity!

ad hom when you can't argue intelligently?

 

[Nosmo King]

You either have hordes of 'varmits' or you cannot recognize facts when you see them.

An "assault rifle" is a rapid firing, magazine fed automatic rifle designed for military use. An AR-15 is a semi automatic which is really good for target practice and plinking cans.

You forgot to add among its many uses it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Due to its rapid rate of fire and high capacity magazine, it can kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Andy Griffith isn't shooting it with Opie. Maniacs are shooting it into crowds of innocents.

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

 

[2aguy]

They are protected by the 2nd Amendment......moron....

Regular magazines allow normal, law abiding citizens to defend themselves...the same way you don't limit how much water a Fire Department can use to put out a house fire , you do not limit how much ammo an innocent person can have in their gun to save their lives.....

doofus.

And as the actual research from the link shows...you have no rational argument to ban them...

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

Concealed carry reciprocity makes the most lax laws the law of the land. People in California or New York don't dictate to Mississippi how to run their gun laws, what laws there are. Why should Mississippi then call the shots (no pun intended) for California and New York?

So...you don't want to meet half way?

The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right.....states can't deny it to citizens of other states.......we don't want Nurses who cross state lines with their legal gun to face a felony and 14 years in prison.....

 

[2aguy]

An "assault rifle" is a rapid firing, magazine fed automatic rifle designed for military use. An AR-15 is a semi automatic which is really good for target practice and plinking cans.

You forgot to add among its many uses it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Due to its rapid rate of fire and high capacity magazine, it can kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Andy Griffith isn't shooting it with Opie. Maniacs are shooting it into crowds of innocents.

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

Knives murdered 1,600 people in 2016......rifles 300..........

Knives should be banned before rifles.......

 

[2aguy]

Expand and improve the background check system. Prevent the mentally disturbed from owning guns. Reinsitiute and perfect the assault weapons ban. Stop concealed carry reciprocity.

Reasonable demands that do not infringe on anyone or anything.

I didn't argue whether or not your ideas were reasonable ...
I simply indicated that your demands do not require a serious response when you have nothing to offer in return for a compromise.

You can have a list of demands ... That does not equal the necessity for anyone to attempt to meet them ...

.

How about stemming the tide of mass shootings? Or,are you not willing to concede that is a problem?

Stemming the tide? All two of them?

There have been mass shootings (4 or more dead) average one every five days for many years.

That is a lie......even Mother Jones, and anti gun, left wing news source says it is a lie....

The entire list of mass public shootings since 1982......moron.......try doing some research...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...

 

[Nosmo King]

The second amendment does not specifically mention LCMs. The framers of the second amendment could not imagine LCMs, or sewage treatment plants or cotton candy for that matter.

And, again, it's not necessary to sign your posts, my dear moron. If I were you, I'd try to find a more complimentary moniker for myself. Doofus makes you sound as if you don't have much confidence in yourself. Personally, I rarely find the need to apply a signature to my posts, but I will in this particular one.

Signed,
More clever than you can aspire to be.

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

Concealed carry reciprocity makes the most lax laws the law of the land. People in California or New York don't dictate to Mississippi how to run their gun laws, what laws there are. Why should Mississippi then call the shots (no pun intended) for California and New York?

So...you don't want to meet half way?

The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right.....states can't deny it to citizens of other states.......we don't want Nurses who cross state lines with their legal gun to face a felony and 14 years in prison.....

Bump stocks for Nations nail Comcealed carry is not a fair quid pro quo.

And why are we bargaining?

Americans have been laying the corpses of their loved ones on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of St. LaPierre of the NRA for decades! If any side needs to make a concession, it's the side that is complicit in the mass shootings by their inaction and refusal to recognize their responsibility in them.

 

[2aguy]

Moron....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

Concealed carry reciprocity makes the most lax laws the law of the land. People in California or New York don't dictate to Mississippi how to run their gun laws, what laws there are. Why should Mississippi then call the shots (no pun intended) for California and New York?

So...you don't want to meet half way?

The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right.....states can't deny it to citizens of other states.......we don't want Nurses who cross state lines with their legal gun to face a felony and 14 years in prison.....

Bump stocks for Nations nail Comcealed carry is not a fair quid pro quo.

And why are we bargaining?

Americans have been laying the corpses of their loved ones on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of St. LaPierre of the NRA for decades! If any side needs to make a concession, it's the side that is complicit in the mass shootings by their inaction and refusal to recognize their responsibility in them.

Lying is not conducive to negotiations......I am not some left wing hitler youth drone....I know the issues, and I know what you want.....You can have bump stocks for reciprocity...I don't want innocent people in jail because they carried their legal guns across state lines.....

 

[Rustic]

Ok, We have a bunch of people on here that want to get rid of the Second Amendment. And they know they cannot get rid of the Second Amendment by using this useless piece of shit as a poster child as the “ultimate boogie man”...

It’s much easier to use this “scary AR” to get rid of the Second Amendment in the eyes of the foolish... Even though it’s a much more useful firearm...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nothing to bargain with? Americans have been laying the bullet ridden corpses of their loved ones on the High Altar of Intransigence in the Cathedral of LaPierre for decades! Why do you need a concession? You are either admitting culpability in mass shootings or you cannot recognize mass shootings for the unnecessary tragedies they are!

Balls the size of tombstones on this guy! Demanding a bargaining chip to stem the tide of shootings and the flow of victims they produce!

Is your never ending empty rhetoric what you intend to replace Constitutionally protected rights with ...

.

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Your definition of assault weapons is wrong! End of discussion on that point. Educate yourself..

Where did you get this bullshit about tumbling rounds? Have you ever seen a round for an AR-15? They don't tumble you moron! They would have zero accuracy. That is point of why it is a rifle! The bullet spins like a football spirals.